MADAN MOHAN (Dead) through LRs v. THAKAR DASS (Dead) through LRs
2026 INSC 730 | Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.12435 of 2019
Coram: Sanjay Karol & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Decided on: 21 July 2026
HEAD NOTES (AIR STYLE)
A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 — Section 13 — Bona fide requirement — Death of original landlord during pendency — Requirement of family member survives.
Paras: 2, 3.3, 9, 11
Where eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlady as well as her son, the death of the landlady during pendency of proceedings does not extinguish the cause of action, since the son's independent requirement continued to subsist. The eviction petition survives through the legal representatives.
Held: Eviction rightly granted.
B. Rent Control — Bona fide requirement — Meaning and scope — Genuine need distinguished from mere desire.
Paras: 6, 6.1, 7
"Bona fide requirement" denotes a real, honest and genuine need and not a fanciful or pretended desire. Courts must objectively assess the sincerity of the landlord's need by placing themselves in the position of the landlord. Once the need is proved, the landlord's choice of the premises cannot ordinarily be substituted by judicial opinion.
Relied on:
- Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222.
- Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778.
C. Alternative accommodation — Landlord's choice — Court cannot compel use of another premises.
Paras: 9
Merely because another shop exists does not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction where the alleged alternative premises was being used as a store or for waste material and concurrent findings accepted such explanation. The landlord is the best judge of the suitability of his premises.
Held: High Court erred in substituting its own assessment.
D. Revisional jurisdiction — Section 115 CPC — Concurrent findings of fact — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence.
Paras: 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is supervisory and not appellate. The High Court cannot reassess evidence or upset concurrent findings merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only where findings are perverse, illegal or suffer from jurisdictional error.
Relied on:
- Masjid Kacha Tank v. Tuffail Mohammed, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 270.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78.
- Ambadas Khanduji Shinde v. Ashok Sadashiv Mamurkar, (2017) 14 SCC 132.
E. Rent legislation — Object — Balance between tenant's protection and landlord's rights.
Paras: 5, 7
Rent control statutes are welfare legislations intended to protect tenants from arbitrary eviction while simultaneously preserving the genuine rights of landlords. The doctrine of bona fide requirement is the statutory mechanism through which this balance is maintained.
Relied on:
Ram Krishan Grover v. Union of India, (2020) 12 SCC 506.
CASE FACTS
Paras: 2–4
- The landlady instituted eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.
-
Eviction was sought on two grounds:
- Non-payment of rent.
- Bona fide personal requirement of herself and her son.
- The tenant tendered arrears during the proceedings; consequently, the dispute substantially survived only on the ground of bona fide requirement.
- The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently ordered eviction.
- The High Court reversed the concurrent findings on the ground that the landlady had concealed the availability of another shop and therefore had not approached the Court with clean hands.
- The landlords appealed before the Supreme Court.
LAW ANALYSIS
(i) Bona fide requirement
Paras: 6–9
The Court reiterated that:
- "Requirement" means a genuine necessity and not a mere wish.
- Courts should objectively evaluate whether the need is natural and honest.
- Once the requirement is established, the landlord's preference regarding which premises should be used deserves judicial respect.
(ii) Alternative accommodation
Para: 9
Availability of another premises does not automatically defeat the claim of bona fide requirement.
The Court observed that:
- the alleged third shop was concurrently found to be used as storage;
- the High Court wrongly re-appreciated factual evidence;
- the landlord cannot be compelled to use another premises merely because it exists.
(iii) Revisional jurisdiction
Paras: 10–10.3
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:
- revision is not a first appeal;
- concurrent findings cannot be disturbed merely because another interpretation is possible;
- interference is confined to jurisdictional error, perversity or material illegality.
The High Court exceeded the limits of Section 115 CPC by reassessing factual findings.
RATIO DECIDENDI
A landlord who establishes a genuine and bona fide requirement under the Rent Act is entitled to eviction, and the Court must ordinarily respect the landlord's choice of the premises. The existence of another property does not by itself negate bona fide requirement. Furthermore, the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, cannot re-appreciate evidence or overturn concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, illegal, or suffer from jurisdictional infirmity.
FINAL DECISION
Paras: 11
- Appeal Allowed.
- High Court judgment set aside.
- Orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority restored.
- Tenant directed to deliver vacant possession within two months.
- No order as to costs.
